forward_quote

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the operation and return values but does not indicate whether this tool is a read or write operation, any side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: a single sentence specifying the action followed by a list of return values. Every word is necessary, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and returns. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., the brief must be submitted), error conditions, and behavior under different states, leaving some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds minimal meaning to the input schema. It implies brief_id is the identifier of the submitted brief but provides no additional details like format, validation, or expected state of the brief. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate for this.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool prices a submitted brief and lists return values (quote_id, unit price, est total, ETA). It distinguishes itself from siblings like forward_get_quote (which likely retrieves existing quotes) and forward_submit_brief (which submits the brief).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that this should be used after submitting a brief or before checkout, nor does it mention any prerequisites or restrictions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.